Exactly:
In an episode of the hit series West Wing, the Joint Chiefs of Staff proposed a proportional response to an attack on U.S. personnel. The fictional president rejected this, stating that an enemy expects a response before they take action. They make a cost-benefit assessment and decide to proceed if they are willing to pay the anticipated price. The fictional president instead advises an unpredictable and disproportionate response to make the enemy think twice, fearing a high cost for aggression. This is what the U.S. did by killing Soleimani, and what Israel has largely avoided doing in Gaza. In essence, it is harder to completely deter an enemy if they accept the expected costs from specific types of aggression.
An enemy counts on our proportional response when it attacks us. They attack because they figure they can handle that kind of retaliation. You know my views on the proportionality nonsense.
Really, it is legal to crush enemies.
Which is why I've long suspected that if Israel has another conflict with Hezbollah in Lebanon--which is making all the right noises without Iran's lips moving at all!--that Israel will go in hard with a multi-division ground raid all the way to Baalbek, Lebanon. I've thought that for close to a decade now, of course.
If America has rejected the popular but non-existent dogma of proportionality of means, which accepts pro-Iran militias rocketing our troops at a low but persistent rate, does that mean we are going to wage a campaign to sweep them up?
Let's hope so.
